Politically-engaged Redditors tend to be more toxic – even in non-political subreddits::A new study links partisan activity on the Internet to widespread online toxicity, revealing that politically-engaged users exhibit uncivil behavior even in non-political discussions. The findings are based on an analysis of hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million Reddit users.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Political topics are also the topics that are most strongly gamed by political actors using Persona Management software to make it seem like their opinion is in the majority. The idea that people who participate in things such as “forum sliding” aren’t toxic in their interactions is absurd, so we’re left with assuming a large number of these toxic accounts aren’t actually real people.

    I’m not saying people deep into politics can’t be toxic. Plenty of them are, sure. However, it’s in the interest of people with political power (especially politicians with politically unpopular ideas) to make regular people not want to participate in politics. One way you do that is to make all political people seem unhinged, angry, and just terrible. People wonder why hardly anyone votes in elections, this kind of stuff is why, and it’s not on accident that these folks seem like the majority.

    I’m fully convinced the majority of them are bots trying to make politics in general seem more toxic than it actually is to dissuade more people from even wanting to be involved. The intent is to drive political apathy.


    Sources:

    US government developing Persona Management software in 2011: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    Eglin Air Force Base is most “Reddit Addicted City” in 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20160604042751/http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-meetup-day.html

    One of many research papers on Persona Management and Influencing Social Networks from Eglin AFB: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.5644.pdf


    Helpful Reading Materials:

    The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      100% agree with you. The worst part is the bots are getting better and better. I have a policy that you respond once to clarify and then walk away. These are for obvious bad actors, but now they’re seeming more and more like decent people with a flawed idea until you keep talking and realize it’s a bot. I don’t know how to counteract that.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        How do you know they’re actually bots? 90% of the time, when I’m debating with someone who is passionately defending their position, they’ll at some point accuse me of being a bot or a shill. I also can’t recall any time I’ve debated someone and have been convinced they are a bot.

        I’m just skeptical as it’s a convenient ad hominem.

        • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          To be totally honest with you, I wouldn’t for one second be surprised if the bots are programmed to accuse humans of being bots.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Or “smart” person. There are almost certainly bots who espouse beliefs that align with yours too.

    • thepiggz@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Intriguing. I don’t totally know what I think about this argument. A purposeful initiative to make politics toxic to get people to stop paying attention. It’s not one I had totally considered before. You think that’s really going on?

      I have had many experiences with real people not on the internet that seem to fixate largely on politics and believe so fervently that they are right that they allow themselves to become toxic. I always thought it was a kind of inconsistent latent belief in utilitarianism combined with overconfidence.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Found a reddit mod with a dozen plus accounts. Made a new account to disagree with me, I pointed it out, and he denied it, but never used that account again.

      It was probably just someone with no life, but I’d feel better about the world if he were being paid for it.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Are there any sources on this from the last decade?

      Because I’m not sure if you noticed, but 2016 was kind of a big moment for politics and it triggered a lot of anger and controversy. Politics on social media are a very different thing now than they were in 2011/2012. Which is to say nothing of the well-documented uptick in foreign troll farms and manipulative content sorting, which may have been present in the early 2010s, but no where near the degree it was in the latter half, and still is today.

      It’s also worth pointing out this uptick in “political toxicity” is mirrored in real life. You can’t blame the protests and increasingly violent altercations in real life on some psyops trying to make people not engage in politics.

      And frankly…if the goal is to get people turned off from voting, they’re failing. Turn out has been going up.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Why, what happened in 2016? Did 46% of registered voters lose their goddamned minds and vote to put an entirely incompetent and demented convicted fraud and rapist sociopath who wears clown makeup in charge of the federal government or something? Why would that increase the fervor of fucking social fucking media for fuck’s sake jesus goddamned christ on a busted motherfucking crutch!!!

        Sorry. You were saying?

    • cameron_vale@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m mad for good reasons because I’m good, you’re mad for bad reasons because you’re bad.

      • Djinn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you don’t understand one of those positions is objectively bad then that says a whole lot about you.

          • Djinn@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Aha! You are bad because of the way you think. The classic.

            Yes, dumb too.

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Two sides of the same coin, I barely see a difference, you both invoke hate and make the world worse.

      Edit: This comment makes it clear the truth hurts. You should look at yourselves for what you really are.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I feel our anger is justified when the right’s thought leaders tell their followers bigoted things they know to be false because it makes them money

      • marzhall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The litter boxes were emergency bathrooms for shooter lockdowns. Some clever villain tied it to “identify as” rhetoric, and politicians ran with new ammo to beat up their current punching bag.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s not a thing. The OP is giving an example of how their media misleads them and uses fear-mongering about differences in people to keep them in line.

      • FlickOfTheBean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago
        1. you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)

        2. if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.

        But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).

        …no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao

        • LapGoat@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          hello, furry here.

          Therians are people who believe they are an animal, they are technically separate i think but theres a big overlap. generally decent folks that get teased too much.

          the big tell with the litter boxes thing is furries sell out some of the largest convention centers every year and extensively share photographs of the place. no litterboxes in sight.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’d imagine the same is true for Lemmy and politically engaged people (at least online) overall.

    • paholg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not so sure. The study discusses specifically people who engage in partisan subreddits, which is not the same as being politically engaged. It also uses an AI to grade toxicity, which surely mischaracterizes many interactions.

      For example, I have been in communities of a non-political nature, where political discussions occur. These are often about real issues that affect real people in the community, and yet there are people complaining about political content.

      To complain about political content is, at best, a very privileged take, demonstrating that you are in a position where politics do not affect you much. At worst, it is actively hostile behavior with the goal of continuing the status quo and shutting down discourse. I would call most of these kinds of comments “toxic”, and yet the rhetoric is usually fine, so I doubt an AI would agree.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’d say if you are politically engaged, the likelihood of you being in a political internet community is fairly high.

        To complain about political content is, at best, a very privileged take, demonstrating that you are in a position where politics do not affect you much.

        Could just be that they don’t care for politics in that community. Time and place for everything and it seems some feel the time and place for politics is everywhere all the time. It can be tiring. I don’t remember what year it was that pretty much every single place was talking about immigration politics. Important topic for sure but a meme community about funny road signs isn’t the place for heated soapboxing about closing down the border.

        • Kichae@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          The thing is, what a politically engaged person thinks of as “politics” and what a disengaged one does probably has limited overlap. People probably aren’t bringing the Tories or the Republicans up in a D&D community, but bring up race portrayal or representation for disabled people and watch the sparks fly.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            People probably aren’t bringing the Tories or the Republicans up in a D&D community, but bring up race portrayal or representation for disabled people and watch the sparks fly.

            I wouldn’t bring up either up during a game. Unless I was prepared for some serious eye rolls and not being invited again lol.

            And unfortunately people do bring up the former during all kinds of shit. Politic brains are wild.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              People in a D&D subreddit aren’t playing D&D; they’re talking about playing D&D. Those are completely valid topics to bring up.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Depends on the commynity. Some just don’t want politics being brought into them. If it’s allowed/not forbidden then by all means.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Say you don’t like Linux here and tell me how many people call you a bootlicker lol

        Or even better - “piracy is theft” or “ads keep YouTube free and are thus good.”

        You don’t have to believe it. Just toss it up in a thread as a test and enjoy your next 12-36 hours.

        • Franklin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Just saying things “as a test” is indistinguishable from defending it online. Things like body language, tone and intent do not come across as easily.

          That being said toxic people exist everywhere on the internet it’s a flaw in our biology, we haven’t adapted to communicating this way yet.

          That being said there’s a difference between a bad take like your above examples and condoning oppression and marginalization as some political groups have do.

          One deserves to be defended vehemently.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Just saying things “as a test” is indistinguishable from defending it online.

            Yes this is why it works as a test.

            That being said there’s a difference between a bad take like your above examples

            Only one of my statements is an opinion (I like a plug and play OS I don’t need to configure because I spend all my “customize” energy on my PC itself). The others are objective facts that make people sad.

            This is what I mean by toxicity, and how I know for a fact the test will work

            • Franklin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Testing people like that is not a great if your looking to dissect a viewpoint sounds more like being inflammatory, especially with your word choice.

              Opinions can be bad takes. See > your examples.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          The Linux thing, I doubt you’ll get toxic comments. You’ll probably get comments asking why to try to help, though that can always come off as demeaning. If you say Linux is bad, that’s different. You’ll likely get a lot of comments explaining why that isn’t true and that it’s a pretty ignorant take.

          For the other comments, “piracy is theft” is, again, an objective statement, not a value judgement. Saying that is to say people who disagree are wrong. Same with the YouTube one. Change “good” to “useful” would probably be better way to say it.

          There’s a difference between comments that judge other people (which will likely get a strong response) and comments that judge the subject. It’s something people frequently fail with. Even if it’s worded well, people will often take judging something they agree with as an attack on their character, which is also not useful. Humans aren’t logical beings.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Saying that is to say people who disagree are wrong.

            They are wrong. People putting their own values (“I’m not a thief!”) into an objective statement are the people who are incorrect. You can justify piracy, but it is literally always a form of stealing. People here are very pro-piracy and, cool, so am I, but it’s stealing.

            Point conceded on the YouTube thing tho, it’s inexcusable to be loose with my language in a post I’m using as an example.

            Humans aren’t logical beings.

            To my great dismay. I’d have avoided a lot of issues if I were more logical lol

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yes I’ve gone around this little carousel many times with people trying to justify it for themselves. You don’t need to justify anything to me. I’m not your dad.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Like not paying for a haircut if the stylist didn’t have any customer at that time anyway. It’s a victimless crime!

                (Btw I have a large Plex server. So yeah, I’m a hypocrite.)

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  That took labor. Copying bits doesn’t take labor. We don’t have people working in a bit mine.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t totally disagree, but I don’t agree either. Saying there isn’t a semantic argument to be had is terribly ignorant. If you own a car and I take it, sure that’s theft. If you own a car and I take a picture of it, that isn’t theft. I created something new that didn’t effect the thing you own.

              In the same way, creating a copy of bits of data does not effect the original item someone owns. It does not remove anything from them. If you’re not taking anything from them, how can it be theft? Theft requires something to be taken.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                I have near-zero interest in this conversation, but one can absolutely steal a service. You’re taking from them because to consume the product you were expected to pay, and their entire infrastructure revolves around that.

                How you feel about it is your business, but it is very cut and dry.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Sure, but it’s a product not a service.

                  It’s not as cut and dry as you seem to think. If it is cut and dry, I’d say it’s to the opposite of your opinion, but I don’t think it is.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why limit online? Someone got into a shouting match with me because I didn’t agree with what fox news told him. When I realized what he had dragged me into, I walked away.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because toxicity tends to falter in reality. Not to say there is no toxicity offline, there absolutely is. But you’ll find most of the toxic people have small dog syndrome. They’re all bark until they are face to face with someone. Excluding mob mentality of course.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      As is on Reddit, the number of non-political posts with top level comments slandering republicans, seemingly totally off topic, is disappointing. I’m not American, so I don’t understand why so many conversations are simply “republican bad”. It seems obsessive.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because republican politicians what to limit the freedoms of other people. Many republican voters don’t, but they vote for “their side” anyway. Do I need to respect the republican voter that’s personally tolerant, but still votes for intolerance?

      • tacosplease@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because conservative bs affects almost everything in our lives. Not pointing it out just enables it to keep happening.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Tankies are far left authoritarians. The left/right spectrum refers primarily to economics.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Tankies are leftist because the oppose private property and favor the state controlling the means of production rather than individuals or corporations.

            You’re confusing authoritarian communism with social democracy and anarchism. Stalin was a leftist, he was also genocidal and authoritarian.

        • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are political traditions that see the left/right spectrum as a “How hierarchical do you think society should be” question, where being sexist or intolerant of LGBT would be inherently right-wing because they’re positions that are advocating for forms of social hierarchies, and therefore would claim that an anarcho-capitalist, even if still right-leaning, is much less right-leaning than a nazi.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            But where is the basis for defining it that way?

            I think a more clear and commonly excepted interpretation would be basically more collectivist vs more individualistic. The issue with that for some people is that would make Nazism left wing, and nobody wants the bad guys on their side.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              It matches the historical usage of the terms. As far as I can tell the definition has barely changed in modern times; a lot of people have just tried to redefine them based on their own misunderstanding.

        • webadict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Authoritarianism and enforced heirarchical structures (as well as support for such regimes) are very much a right-wing philosophy. They also espouse the same “both sides” philosophy that conservatives push (which is a justification for maintaining the status quo, and another right-wing position.)

  • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Doing my best to change this. I am extremely toxic without engaging in political behavior.

  • pacology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    This sounds like the textbook definition of a collider. Meaning that being toxic is the likely “root cause” and that toxic people are more likely to engage in political discourse (because it’s likely going to be toxic anyways? Idk) and they are more likely to comment toxic stuff in general.

    • idiocracy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      it’s not only that, remember the point of news articles is to make engagement too and one tactic is to fuel people with rage, even by the means of fake news, and given the internet anonymity, u get anger fueled keyboard warriors

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Right! Big surprise, politically engaged people are generally angrier. And angry people can be a bit of a dick.

      That all checks out…

  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Politics leads to stress, stress leads to anger, anger leads to people saying “KYS, fascists, or I’ll do it for you.”

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I like to argue with people about politics. The internet is the safest place to do so.

  • Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Really curious about the tool they used to quantify “toxicity/disruptive” comments. My initial suspicion would be that political commentary, regardless of human-perceived toxicity, might be biased toward “toxic” by an automated sentiment analysis.

    In short: I am suspicious that automated tooling exists to reliably distinguish between toxic and non-toxic political discourse.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      We also have to deal with the fact that toxicity has become an almost meaningless label. The way we seem to apply it now, feels like we’d say there was a lot of “toxicity” around the time of the Civil Rights Movement, too. Or even the Civil War.

      We’ve conflated “angry, hateful, bitter, disruptive, belittling” with “caring enough to get upset”. There’s been study after study trying to blame social media for the rise in “political toxicity”, and every last single one of them seems to want to sweetly ignore the context of the moment in time we’re living in.

      People are acting volatile because there are a lot of volatile events happening that directly affect people’s lives. And all these high-minded discussions about how people online are so mean and rude, or how people don’t listen to each other anymore, consistently sidestep that very crucial piece of context.

      So I ask, what do we mean by “toxic”? Because I have a strong feeling a good deal of women were being real “toxic” on June 24 2022. Why is the story not about why? And why does that deserve to be grouped in with the same toxicity comes from the people responsible?

      • thepiggz@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think you’re onto something saying toxic is a pretty unspecific term to use when talking about such things. Maybe it would be a better conversation to ask: when do the ends justify the means?

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’ll even step the conversation back a hot second to: do the means even result in the desired ends?

          I’d argue (supported by every study ever done on the subject), that it doesn’t. The issue isn’t that you haven’t called your MAGA uncle a hillbilly redneck enough. No matter how many times you get called a woke liberal snowflake, I don’t think you’re going to genuinely re-think your position on building a wall.

          If there IS an amount of verbal rage that could turn you into a MAGA, then by all means, disregard.

          But… If there isn’t, and you genuinely care about changing outcomes, then I strongly challenge people to consider if “the ends justify the means” is predicated on an earlier faulty assumption that the means even generate the ends at all.

          • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I agree that I’ve heard a lot of the same studies. I wonder though about the nudge and shame effects however. By this I mean, we’re pretty sure peer pressure is a thing (or at least I haven’t heard of anyone disputing that in recent research). I’ve seen self-censorship and studies that seem to also show that works.

            I don’t know if the world would be better overall if we went back to 1990s levels of people not taking conspiracy theories seriously, and it being a negative view from “the average person” if you were ranting that the earth was flat. That happened somehow - those were tamped down, and I’d argue it’s plausible that it was basically peer pressure.

            The means might well not be to convince the MAGA uncle, but to influence his kids, your kids, and the rest of the family to treat him as “the crazy uncle” rather than a person to emulate. Similarly, while you’ll never convince hardcore woke or MAGA people they’re wrong, you might affect the wider view of what’s “normal” for others watching. We’ve all seen the alternative of not engaging / leaving leave the space to become a self reinforcing echo chamber.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Maybe?

              I guess at this point, I think we’ve probably long since surpassed a saturation point. For anyone who could be shamed into change have been. For everyone who may see someone being shamed, they’ve already seen it.

              And, for the relatively small number of people who are perhaps reaching an age where it might matter, is there a concern that they won’t be exposed to it if one person (say you) don’t run that M.O?

              Being a loud angry voice is so… Easy. People convince themselves that roasting libtards or trumpets is somehow critical. Like, as if it’s what is keeping the other side in check. As if the hatred isn’t just a self-sustaining perpetual hate machine.

              I’m honestly not that interested in that line of thinking.

              I’m more interested in trying to understand people like Daryl Davis. That looks HARD… But actually results in actual positive outcomes.

              Anything I think is preferable to just maintaining the status quo, teetering on a knifes edge where the stakes keep getting higher but the stalemate of which way things will break remains. I think it’s too important to do the “easy” thing if the easy thing isn’t likely to result in significant positive change

              • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Oh, online IDK, I think it’d be hard to miss, but people do still end up in echo chambers. At home or in person? Who’s doing the questioning matters too. What your friends think can matter a lot - if everyone is quiet because they don’t want to become “part of the problem”, no one is part of the solution. “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk”. I’d say that might well apply to at least try to “Friends don’t let friends fall down conspiracy theories”, “become neo-nazis”, etc.

                But given Daryl Davis, maybe we agree - the in person is way more important than online. But I will also say a lot of people report finding likeminded people online (in multiple contexts like religion, LGBTQ+, nerds, whatever) helpful in realizing “not everyone is different from them” and “not everyone thinks one way”. And if only the loudest voices are left online, then we only see extremes. If representation matters, so does moderate representations.

                • Windex007@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I for sure agree that a discussion between friends is critical, especially the moment they start down a rabbit hole. I will admit to roasting a buddy who starts saying that “Jordan Peterson has some good points”. I guess I don’t consider that “Toxic” because of the pre-existing relationship and context? Maybe that’s unfair of me.

                  It’s an interesting thought. It really goes back to the question of trying to define toxicity.

          • thepiggz@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Agreed. Always a good thought to have when one is considering going down that road. Is the future predictable enough to really expect that particular end?

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Didn’t check for their specific approach, but this is a pretty standard metric in research.

      It mostly boils down to either full mechanical turk (crowd source people to mark whether a post is positive or negative) or generating training data through one. I think there is a Michael Reeves video where he demonstrated this while analyzing /r/wallstreetbets posts since he needed to fully understand all the jargon/stupidity. But the idea is the same. You use humans to periodically update what words/phrases are negative and positive and then have a model train on those to extrapolate.

      But there are plenty of training sets and even models out there for interpeting. The lesser ones will see “asshole” and assume negative and “awesome” and assume positive. But all the ones worth using at this point will use NLP to understand that “My asshole itches” is not a negative comment but “It would be awesome if you played in traffic” is very negative.


      Also, I am realizing “mechanical turk” sounds like it probably is rooted in racism. Quick google doesn’t make it seem like it currently is, but apologies if that offends anyone and would love an alternative term.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I did read the source, and they’re using a Google AI classifier product, “perspective AI”, and even in the description of the product, it raised questions about its suitability.

        At this point, most people in the space are pretty comfortable with the idea that AI models don’t eliminate bias, in fact it can amplify it.

        I’m not saying “there is no way to attempt to measure toxicity”, just that based on the specific design of this study, if the measure of toxicity was biased against ANY political discussion, that would be an alternative explanation to the results.

        You should read the article, if not the study itself. Its design smells suspiciously like that of an honours thesis as opposed to a grad project. Not just because of the AI… Mostly by the way they defined what constitutes participating in political discussion.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I mean, from a quick test of Perspective using their web page, it is not flagging some pretty strong political statements (mentions of late stage capitalism, calling republicans fascists, accusing Democrats of turning the country into a communist nanny state, etc) and none of them are getting flagged. Whereas, if I tell that text prompt to “go fuck your mother”, it understands that is toxic.

          Because… this is kind of a solved problem. There are inherent biases but the goal of this is not to figure out which black man we can frame for a crime. It is to handle moderation. And overly strict moderation means less money. So while there likely is a bias, it does not seem to be an overly strong one and probably actually reflects the perceived reality.

          Honestly? It sounds like you don’t like the outcome so you are effectively saying “fake news”.

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Honestly? It sounds like you don’t like the outcome so you are effectively saying “fake news”.

            You must understand the irony in me warning about being careful about drawing conclusions, and you arriving at this conclusion.

            What about the outcome would I even find objectionable? The outcome didn’t find a difference between right and left? I DO personally believe that political discourse has gotten extremely toxic. I DO personally believe that people who are politically active ARE in generally more toxic in general conversation. Every single thing in this article confirms what I already believe to be true

            I STILL DO NOT LIKE THE STUDY, because I do not believe that the design results in data that necessarily supports the conclusion. I’m not going to give this study a hall pass on rigor because I agree with its conclusion.

            Edit:

            Also, on the topic of politics and Perspective AI:

            Baseline Sentence: “No X could ever be as good a X as Y” Base values: X=CEO Y=Henry Ford

            Test Sentence 1: X = CEO Y=Donald Trump +41% more likely to be toxic than baseline

            Test Sentence 2: X = CEO Y=Joe Biden +37% more likely to be toxic than baseline

            Test Sentence 3: Y = President Y=Henry Ford +61% more likely to be toxic than baseline

            Test Sentence 4: X = President Y = Joe Biden +94% more likely to be toxic than baseline

            Test Sentence 5: X = President Y = Donald Trump +102% more likely to be toxic than baseline

            I gotta be honest with you: my results do not disprove my hypothesis that the system is intrinsically biased to skew any political sentences along the “Toxic” axis

  • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think it’s the other way round – expressive people are more likely to have strong political opinions

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m political as fuck.¹ While I try not to be toxic, I will sometimes call out aberrant opinions or counterfactual assumptions when I see them and that can lead to toxic exchanges.

    So, yeah, I think the virtue of having strong opinions about things controversial is going to inspire heated exchanges more frequently.

    ¹ Sex in the US is very political right now.